Insights “Almaz-Antey” and the Netherlands on MH-17: we compared versions

Insights “Almaz-Antey” and the Netherlands on MH-17: we compared versions

29.09.2016

Version of the international investigation on the explosion of the rocket “Beech” on a collision course Boeing flight MH17 false – the main conclusion, which was announced by adviser to the chief designer of the Concern “Almaz-Antey” Mikhail Malyshev at a press conference in Moscow, arranged immediately after the publication of the findings of the international Commission in the Netherlands.

photo: youtube.com

Despite the fact that both conferences were on the same topic, seemed very different. In the Netherlands as evidence selectively was shown a photo of the damaged wreckage, the truth is often taken in this perspective, it is difficult to understand what part they originally were, and supplemented all this beautiful computer generated graphics and cartoons made on the reconstruction of events as they presented themselves to the investigators.

Read the story “Published the full text of the outcome of the international investigation of the disaster of MH-17”

In Moscow, too, showed pictures of the downed plane. But next demonstrated already not computer pictures and cartoons, and the real shooting and photo results of field experiments which were carried out by the specialists which are working in parallel with the investigation, also reconstruct the accident.

Fully admit that the cartoon about how a Russian Buk goes to Ukraine, the Western audience might like it more than real and not so beautiful results of experiments that are difficult perceived by the ear to the uninitiated spectator. So, who will be there to understand and to dig into the evidence.

However, like-not like – not the category of evaluation, which is used when talking about a scientific experiment, which is considered as evidence in the investigation of the disaster. And from this point of view, the facts, once again presented by the “Almaz-Antey”, the man is not just convincing, but simply categorically. This was in stark contrast with what questionable things presented as evidence of his version of Dutch.

Despite the fact that the representative of “Almaz-Antey” the investigation is not directly accused, but only looked at the facts, it was clear: either foreign investigators for the past two years engaged in manipulation of facts to build a pre-articulated version of the disaster or in the European and especially the Dutch schools very bad physics and the exact Sciences, even if those who are considered international experts who base their assertions on things that contradict the laws of physics.

Malashevsky cited an example: in the report of the Joint investigation group (SSG), presented earlier, it was alleged that the rocket was launched 6 km South of the village the Snow (located about 10 km from Torez). However, if the missile is actually released out, its speed at the time of detonation would be about 600 m/sec. And the report says that the 730 m/sec. Turns out “Buck” shot of Torez?

The representative of the Group also said that the damage to the wreckage, is described in the SSG report do not correspond to their adjusted desired settings, not even bothering to match the description with the original. The experiments that were conducted by the international investigation team, generally can not be called correct, as the Dutch experts in modeling the collapse of the liner used, the parameters of the missile American defense systems, but it is structurally fundamentally different from the missile complex “Buk”.

Concerning the Holland investigation, Maleszewski, of course, did not call a spade a spade, but it was so clear that were it, or Amateurs, or people whose task it was to hide something. One of the fundamental differences between the “Diamond Anthem” and investigators are damage to the aircraft, derived from fragments on a tangent. When modeling experts proved that this simply could not be if the missile hit the ship on a collision course, that is from the area of Snow, which controlled the militia. And that is exactly what the investigators say.

“They don’t just create a virtual model,” says Malyshev, – they changed it a bit for themselves. They made a completely different source data. We asked the source data of calculations and tested in practice — in 1980-e years was more than 124 tests of missiles, and got a value that blows up the warhead. If you carefully read the technical report of the Dutch Committee, they write that estimate only damage the outer skin. That is, they do not look like the inside of submunitions fly. Supposedly it is difficult and impossible to estimate. As impossible when it’s naked eye visible? That is, they had not even considered why there was a bounce, why the floor was broken.”

In General, according to experts, the facts that the investigators somehow ignored was much greater than those they feel the need to take into account the material of your report. Apparently, in this investigation it was turned on its head: first he made the necessary conclusions and then under them were selected by the material that even remotely, even with a stretch, could be used as evidence.

For all the arguments of the Russian side, confirmed by numerous field trials that this may not be the investigators only said, “No, our computer says it flies different.” And apparently the way it was, assuming that this computer simulation was made only the data that was supposed to give in advance the predicted result. Only in this case, about the reliability of published in the Netherlands report, however.

Read the story “investigation into the crash of MH-17: the specter of the “Boeing” over the world”.